Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 879 (PNJ)

Kamlesh Kaur v. Dharam Singh

2004-08-11

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Smt. Kamlesh Kaur (ex-wife of respondent No. 1 Shri Dharam Singh) has filed the instant petition against the orders dated 1.7.1999 and 26.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunagar at Jagadhri and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, respectively, vide which the complaint filed by her under Sections 406/34 Indian Penal Code, was dismissed and the accused respondents were discharged. 2. In the instant case, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with respondent No. 1 in the year 1983. Subsequently, some dispute arose between them. Respondent No. 1 filed a divorce petition against the petitioner and the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance. The matter was compromised between them and the petitioner received a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the maintenance proceedings and divorce was granted. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant complaint under Section 406 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code on the allegations that respondent No. 1 and his father respondent No. 2 herein had misappropriated the dowry articles given to them at the time of marriage. In this complaint, the respondents were summoned after the preliminary evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner produced only two witnesses in her pre-charge evidence. She examined herself as CW-2 and her father as CW-1. 3. After considering the pre-charge evidence produced by the petitioner, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the petitioner was not sufficient to frame the charge against the respondents. Hence, both the accused were discharged. Primarily, the trial Court framed the aforesaid opinion on the basis of the three factors. Firstly, that the petitioner failed to lead any evidence to show the entrustment of the alleged articles to the respondents. Secondly, the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation as the alleged entrustment of the articles was made in the year 1983 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 1995. Thirdly, that earlier the similar complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default and the second complaint was filed without pleading any additional new facts. 4. The order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. Thirdly, that earlier the similar complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default and the second complaint was filed without pleading any additional new facts. 4. The order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. While dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, the revisional Court has observed that no specific averment was made in the complaint regarding the entrustment of the dowry articles allegedly given at the time of the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 nor any documentary evidence was led from which it could have been inferred that actually the alleged dowry articles were handed over to the respondents. Even there was no evidence to establish that any such articles were purchased by the petitioner or her father, and were given at the time of marriage. Regarding the limitation, the revisional Court has observed that as per the allegation, the demand of the entrustment of dowry articles was made only in the year 1985-86 and thereafter no such demand was made. Therefore, it was held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. It was also observed that the petitioner had already received Rs. 25,000/- as maintenance amount from respondent No. 1 and the said fact was admitted by her father while making statement as CW-1. It was further observed that no doubt the case in which the compromise was entered into, was under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, but even the parties have comprised the matter and the said amount was received in lieu of the compromise of the entire matter. After taking into consideration all these facts, the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the aforesaid two orders passed by the Courts below. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the same. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnised in the year 1983 and the instant complaint was filed in the year 1995 and that too after the diverce was granted to respondent No. 1. It has also came in evidence that compromise was arrived at between the parties in the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and the petitioner also received lump sum amount Rs. 25,000/- as maintenance. It has also came in evidence that compromise was arrived at between the parties in the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and the petitioner also received lump sum amount Rs. 25,000/- as maintenance. Both the Courts below, after considering the evidence available on the record, in my opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that there was no incriminating evidence available against the respondents and, therefore, they were discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional error in the impugned orders or patent mis-reading of any documentary and oral evidence available on the record. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.